originally posted by: chr0naut
'collusion' is a deflection used by Trump from the consideration of far more serious crimes, which were the ones actually being investigated.

Funny, I could have sworn every democratic affiliated media organisation said collusion about 1200 times per day.
So did Nadler, Pelosi, Schiff, Hillary, Comey, Brennan..

and yet, its just a made up word Trump used to deflect from his real crimes... which were in fact not found in the special counsel.

sense = 0

No, collusion is a real term and a business misdemeanour, but not in Federal law.

Although I can't be sure, I believe that Trump used it first in regard to Mueller's investigation, then the AG echoed it in an impromptu stairway
interview and then the next thing everyone was talking about 'collusion'.

Still isn't actually a Federal crime, no matter how many echo it.

I mean, should we eat feces just 'cause billions of flies do?

sly!

it all feels very much like moving goalposts..

there's still 0 evidence of anything nefarious occurring from the Trump campaign during the election.
the Clinton Campaign, DOJ, FBI, CIA and Obama administration though....

Fabricated by democrats. And no one cares about what hookers say. Hacking attempts are prosecutable as well as all forms of fraud, so there should be
some criminal charges from state prosecutors where the crimes occurred. No charges? Okay.

There were charges.

There were 34 individuals indicted as a direct result of the Mueller investigation. The Mueller report had no 'extra' charges beyond those, when the
investigation concluded (except for the 10 listed potential attempts at obstruction of justice by Trump, which were not prosecuted because you can't
indict a sitting President).

So you mean you have been commenting on all of these threads about the mueller report, and you are unaware that in the us legal system there is a
presumption of innocence?

That is unfortunate

Cite the statute, then.

You seriously think there is no presumption of innocence? Wow.

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its
enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.

From long before his time with the trump campaign and not with any business involving trump or the campaign.

Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer during the Campaign, has been convicted of tax and bank charges, campaign finance violations and lying to
Congress. In total, 8 counts.

Cohen plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit (campaign finance) to avoid going to trial for a crime he may have committed (a crime that had zero to
do with trump or the campaign).

Konstantin Kilimnik, an employee of Mannafort (Trump's campaign manager) was charged, by Mueller, with conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstruction
of justice for witness tampering during the Manafort investigation

Charged? Or convicted? But again, here we are back at manafort who was charged/convicted of crimes he committed long before his time with trump.

There was a total of 34 people indicted as a direct result of the Mueller investigation.

A meaningless stat that cannot overcome these conclusions from the mueller report:

...the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as
an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases
of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any
member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

originally posted by: matafuchs
There is a major difference is that this investigation is not looking for a crime. It is working to provide the proof to convict and those who
thought Trump was toast are all very worried right now.

Spying on a campaign. It happened. There are those who did this on the orders of others but in the end it all goes to the top.

Yes it did.
Too bad they were really arrogant and left a trail.
She wasn't supposed to lose.

I asked for a statute and there isn't one. Nor is there anything in your Constitution. It egregious to me that US law is essentially based upon an
undocumented assumption.

Instead of making excuses, perhaps you could lobby to get Congress to add a clear, definite and incontestable statute?

Well, that AND the talk about the People's Republic of Turtles judicial system...

Q: Can the government detain me and prevent me from going about my way without my consent?
A: Yes, IF they meet the evidentiary threshold of "reasonable suspicion" they may temporarily detain you for a short time while they
investigate. You do not have to exonerate yourself or provide them with any information beyond identifying yourself. You maintain a presumption of
innocence.

Q: Can the government search my person or property without my consent? Can the government arrest me and hold me in a jail for a trial?
A: Yes, IF they meet the evidentiary burden of "probable cause" (it is more likely than not you committed a specific crime based on evidence). You do
not have to exonerate or speak to them in anyway beyond identifying yourself. You still maintain a presumption of innocence.

Q: Can the government convict me of and punish me for a crime?
A: Yes, IF they can show with evidence that the only reasonable conclusion is that you committed a specific crime after considering the
evidence. You do not need to testify or exonerate yourself. You maintain a presumption of innocence. If any reasonable doubt exists, the government
has failed meet its evidentiary burden. You do not need to prove it is more likely than not that you are innocent. In fact the presumption is so
strong that the government is required to provide you, the defendant, with any exculpatory evidence (evidence which might eventend to indicate
you are not in fact guilty) they may uncover in the course of their investigation.

Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer during the Campaign, has been convicted of tax and bank charges, campaign finance violations and
lying to Congress. In total, 8 counts.

Cohen plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit (campaign finance) to avoid going to trial for a crime he may have committed (a crime that had zero to
do with trump or the campaign).

He used campaign funding to hide his fraud. There was an audit trail and fairly massive amount of other evidence, not just his confession.

, an employee of Mannafort (Trump's campaign manager) was charged, by Mueller, with conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstruction of
justice for witness tampering during the Manafort investigation

Charged? Or convicted? But again, here we are back at manafort who was charged/convicted of crimes he committed long before his time with trump.

Kilimnik was indicted but still at large. He also was mentioned in the Mueller report as actively communicating with Mannafort throughout the campaign
(he was a lobbyist later revealed as a Russian agent, as is documented in the Mueller report).

Kilimnik was the one who prompted Mannafort to encourage Trump to take the position he did on the Ukraine-Russia issue, after Trump was
inaugurated.

There was a total of 34 people indicted as a direct result of the Mueller investigation.

A meaningless stat that cannot overcome these conclusions from the mueller report:

...the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as
an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases
of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any
member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.